Perforator Mapping and Optimizing Design of the Lateral Arm Flap: Anatomy Revisited and Clinical Experience

dc.contributor.authorChang, Edward I.Fei
dc.contributor.authorIbrahim, Amir E.
dc.contributor.authorPapazian, Nazareth J.
dc.contributor.authorJurgus, Abdo
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, Alexander T.
dc.contributor.authorSuami, Hiroo
dc.contributor.authorYu, Peirong
dc.contributor.departmentSurgery
dc.contributor.facultyFaculty of Medicine (FM)
dc.contributor.institutionAmerican University of Beirut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-24T12:12:41Z
dc.date.available2025-01-24T12:12:41Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The lateral arm flap remains an underused flap, especially as a free flap. In this article, the authors describe the perforator anatomy to optimize flap design and harvest. METHODS: Perforator locations were mapped in 12 cadavers (24 arms), and a retrospective review was conducted of 51 patients undergoing lateral arm flap surgery. RESULTS: One to three reliable perforators supply the lateral arm flap. Based on cadaveric dissections, from the deltoid insertion, the A, B, and C perforators were located at 7.2 +/- 1.0 cm, 9.9 +/- 1.2 cm, and 11.8 +/- 0.8 cm, which was 0.44, 0.61, and 0.72 of the distance from the deltoid insertion, respectively. The average pedicle length was 7.0 +/- 1.1 cm. The cadavers were entirely symmetric in the number and location of the perforators between the right and left arms. All 51 patients (24 male and 27 female patients) had at least one perforator with an average pedicle length of 7.0 +/- 1.3 cm, an average arterial diameter of 1.7 +/- 0.3 mm, and a vein diameter of 2.5 +/- 0.5 mm. All but one flap was performed as a free flap for head and neck reconstruction, with one pedicled flap for shoulder reconstruction. The average flap size was 72.2 +/- 37.1 cm (range, 21 to 165 cm). The nondominant arm was used for all free flaps. There were no total or partial flap losses. Twenty-eight patients reported donor-site numbness, with one infection, one hematoma, and one wound dehiscence. CONCLUSION: The lateral arm flap can be harvested reliably based on well-defined perforators and anatomical landmarks with minimal donor-site morbidity and should be included among the techniques used by reconstructive microsurgeons. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002393
dc.identifier.eid2-s2.0-84963706341
dc.identifier.pmid27064226
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10938/32839
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherLippincott Williams and Wilkins
dc.relation.ispartofPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
dc.sourceMedline
dc.subjectAnatomic landmarks
dc.subjectArm/surgery
dc.subjectCadaver
dc.subjectFascia/transplantation
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectFollow-up studies
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMicrosurgery/methods
dc.subjectMiddle aged
dc.subjectMuscle, skeletal/transplantation
dc.subjectPerforator flap
dc.subjectPlastic surgery procedures/methods
dc.subjectRetrospective studies
dc.subjectThigh/surgery
dc.subjectTissue and organ harvesting/methods
dc.titlePerforator Mapping and Optimizing Design of the Lateral Arm Flap: Anatomy Revisited and Clinical Experience
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2016-9406.pdf
Size:
1.47 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections